If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Intelligent designs by itself doesn't prove there was a single God and not Gods plural.

It also doesn't prove a creator or creators were immortal all knowing beings. Or that they have power such that prayer could be made effective.

Then if all that were also proven true by science or other ways of finding facts it doesn't make it certain that this proves doctrine is true.

Meanwhile I watched Goldfinger perhaps the best James Bond movie

Well, you can't really prove or disprove creationism, just like you can't really prove or disprove the existence of God. Science can only explain natural phenomenon, so anything supernatural in origin is outside of the scope of empirical science. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means that science is not an adequate tool to measure it with.

Science is simply not capable of providing the answers to every question in life.

Anyways, I finally got around to buying The Hobbit on Blu-Ray. Now, that I can watch it at home and not worry about being surrounded by impatient people in the audience, I think I actually enjoy the movie more. But that's been the case with all of the LOTR movies.

I wonder if we're getting an extended edition of this movie soon.

"To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence… When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C.S. Lewis

Well, you can't really prove or disprove creationism, just like you can't really prove or disprove the existence of God. Science can only explain natural phenomenon, so anything supernatural in origin is outside of the scope of empirical science. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means that science is not an adequate tool to measure it with.

Science is simply not capable of providing the answers to every question in life.

I agree with all the above. As an agnostic, I split from religious folk because they want to have faith and believe in particular dogma, which is then predicated on the supernatural.

I really don't believe in the super natural. There is not conclusive evidence of it, whether we could even be talking about ghosts or The Force.

With regards to The Force, it is fun to imagine it. I actually am captivated by the fantasy of having such power to put it to both self-serving and truthfully well-intended self-righteous use. (For example, having the power of The Force, and using it to eventually command all the stormtroopers to make sure that no one is denied universal healthcare - as that would be one of my values that I personally think the absense of is painfully wrong. I'd also force the transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy, and use the stormtroopers to overthrow the world's dictators and mandate re-education for the populace for self-governing adoption of democracy. (Yes, that is forcing my way on to others - like if we invaded Syria and finally got rid of Assad - as there are people who like him.)

A difference with the Bibical supernatural fantasy is that a human individual cannot aspire to become God and mandate such a doctrine (while the 10 Commandments are a religious doctrine - univeral healthcare and the imposition of democratic government upon former dictatorships is also a doctrine - maybe the Tycho Doctrine - but in reality, it seems to be the summation of both the Obama and Bush doctrines).

But we come back to the decision to want to base life on doctrine as it's presented such that it's predicated on the will of a supernatural being. That's where it can be unacceptable to some (though in actuality, most of that doctrine makes rational sense but it's just too extreme for non-believers' tastes).

But to stretch that back to supernaturalism in films etc, how do we know that you have to drive a stake through a vampire's heart? That's typical vampire "doctrine" but what if a creator decides that doesn't work? And why wouldn't decapitation? Or would you get a vampire who can use his head to control his detached body? On Walking Dead, the zombies can't do this, so just the detached head remains alive. Of course, we don't know what a zombie on Walking Dead really is? I wonder if (creator) Robert Kirkland does either? The zombies decay and fall apart. If a zombie "lives" its natural course on Walking Dead, will it cease to be animated as the brain rots out of the skull? Eventually, we only have skeletons left, right? Robert Kirkland can create any rule he wants - as he is "the creator" here with supernatural influence over "Rick's world." Because Rick's world is fake.

If we were creaed, was our creator(s) supernatural? Could they just change the rules - and bring Transformers to life and down upon our world? If they actually use evolution as a tool, how long would it take to evolve another organic species if the creators were actually working on it? Could they make a new species and have it arrive tomorrow?

Actually, I would have done that with Cybertron. Survivors placed their essence in digital and if say Megatron was destroyed, his essence is forever gone - because he was a real individual. Galvatron would be related if Megatron could be "downloaded," but not if Megatron was truly a unique lifeform's essense.

In any case, if we had to upload our "beings" into machines, that would make earth turn into cybertron.

It would make Transformers have more at stake by that twist thrown in by a creator.

But normally we don't see that kind of supernaturalism in real life. Or we can't prove or didn't investigate a phenomenon enough.

BAD Pts Need:R5-C7 lf leg (x2), , R4-P44 right leg BAD Pts Offered For Trade: PM me - I have lots of parts now including BG-J38!. New Kyle Katarn is also available.

"This is 40", I laughed pretty hard. Paul Rudd seems to be enjoying more starring roles as opposed to supporting roles, I also watched "Our Idiot Brother" a couple of weeks ago, I caught it on cable and rather enjoyed it.

I've also been watching "Once Upon A Time" the television series, just finished season 1, it's much better than I thought it would be. My sister turned me on to it.

I have also been watching "The Neighbors" a campy, funny alien next-door comedy staring 80's honorary "Brat-Pack" member Jami Gertz (Sixteen Candles) who I absolutely loved in "Listen to Me" and "Less Than Zero".

I have also been watching "The Neighbors" a campy, funny alien next-door comedy staring 80's honorary "Brat-Pack" member Jami Gertz (Sixteen Candles) who I absolutely loved in "Listen to Me" and "Less Than Zero".

Really hope the Neighbors gets picked up for a second season. The Pretty in Pink take-off ep was hilarious.

I started watching season 1 of American Horror Story last night. The wife, that is, my wife, doesn't like horror, so I have to watch it w/o her, which is hard to do. She doesn't like me leaving her downstairs with no light b/c the white walkers might get her.